Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 21:50:12 10/04/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 04, 1999 at 22:28:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 04, 1999 at 18:51:55, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>>Posted by Robert Hyatt on October 04, 1999 at 09:35:17: >> >>>>Then tell me the difference between a "positional sacrifice", and a >>>"sacrifice". >>> >>> >>>Here is how _I_ differentiate between the two: >>> >>>positional sacrifice: giving up material for some positional compensation >>>that you believe will enable you to win when the game seems to be pretty >>>even, or will enable you to draw if your opponent seems to be winning. IE >>>black frequently plays RxNc3 in the Sicilian, as it removes a dangerous piece >>>and prevents it from supporting the center, plus it often produces other weak- >>>nesses such as two isolated pawns. Or where black has pawns at a2/b2/c2 and >>>black finds a way to play a3 in a position where white must play bxa3. Black >>>believes that by giving up the pawn, the three weak white pawns (a2/a3/c2) >>>will >>>eventually fall, and because they are isolated, white has no real chances of >>>winning an endgame on the queenside as well. All of this is just positional >>>judgement that says "my position before the sac is worse than my position >>>after >>>the sac." >>> >>>real sacrifice: giving up material, not because you see immediate positional >>>gain that offsets the loss, but because you believe that the resulting >>>position >>>has tactical chances that are worth the gamble. IE the common Bxh7+ move that >>>gets played even when white can't see a forced mate, but he can see the king >>>getting into places where it might not be able to avoid a mate. This is more >>>speculative since the sacrificer doesn't actually see whether the gamble pays >>>off or not. I do this fairly often in blitz time controls myself. Probably >>>more often than I do real positional sacrifices... >> >>Thanks for pointing out your views. >> >>When a human sacs with Bxh7+ he expects a win otherwise he wouldn't >>play that move. Rebel played 24.gxh6 and Sherbakov took the bait (the >>white knight) with 24..Qxd5? (24..g6! was the only good move) and then >>was caught in a heavy king attack. Every annotator will call 24.gxh6 a sac. >> >>IMO. >> >>Ed >> >>PS, just read GM Scherbakov calls 24.gxh6 a sac too :) > > >I realize that. I am simply pointing out that they are using the term >_incorrectly_. IE Howard posted two different author's opinions of what >makes a sacrifice. Both agreed that it requires _not_ seeing material gain >as a result... in this game hxg6 doesn't sac anything, it wins a bunch. Obviously it was a sac to GM Scherbakov, then, even if it wasn't a sac to Rebel. :-) Dave
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.